DISCLAIMER: If this post is off-topic to this site, please recommend a site where this post would be appropriate.
On Ubuntu 18.04, in bash, I am writing a network-based, threaded application that requires multiple servers. It receives files through the network and processes them, ultimately making an API call that finishes the processing and logs the results to a database for later retrieval and reporting.
So far I have written the application using non-threaded programming models and concepts. That means the files are processed one at a time in real-time. This works great if there is no sudden burst of files and/or a backlog of files to process. The main bottle neck has been the way I sequentially send files to the API one after another, waiting until the entire operation has taken place for one file and the API returns the results. The API has a rate limit of 8 calls per second. But since each call takes from .75 to 1 second, my program waits until the operation is done and only processes about 1 file per second through the API. In short, I did not have to worry about scheduling API calls because I could barely do one call per second.
Since the capacity is there to process 8 files per second, and I need more speed, I have been converting my single-threaded, sequential application into a parallel, scalable, multi-threaded application. This new version can spawn enough threads to send 8 files per second to the REST API and much more. So now I have the opposite problem. I am sending too many requests per second to the REST API and am in danger of triggering penalties, etc. Ultimately, when my traffic is higher, I will upgrade my subscription to the API and get more calls per second, but this current dilemma has got me thinking about how to schedule the API calls with different threads.
The purpose of this post is to discuss an idea about how to schedule these REST API calls across various threads. Specifically, I want to discuss how to coordinate timing and usage of the API while maintaining efficiency and yet not overloading the API. In short, I want to coordinate a group of threads so that the API is properly used. Not too fast and not too slow.
Independent of my application, this idea could be useful in a number of generically similar scenarios.
My idea is to create an "air traffic controller" ("ATC") so that the threads of the application have a centralized timing authority to check when they are ready to submit files to the REST API. The ATC would know how many time slots/calls per time period (in this case, calls per second) the API can schedule. The ATC would be listening for the threads to request a time slot ("launch code") which would give them a time slot in the future to perform their API call. The ATC would decide based on the schedule of other launch codes that it has already handed out.
In my case, from the start of the upload of the file to the API, it could take 0.75 to 1 second to complete the processing and receive a response from the API. This does not affect the count of new API calls that can be performed. It is just a consideration of how long the threads will be waiting once they call the API. It may not be relevant to this overall discussion.
Each thread would obviously have to do some error handling. If the API timed out or threw an error, then the thread would have to handle it and get back in line with the ATC -if appropriate- and ask for a new launch code. Maybe it should report the error to the ATC for centralized logging?
In situations where the file processing needs burst above 8 files per second, there would be a scheduling backlog where the threads should wait their turn as assigned by the ATC.
Here are some other considerations:
Function
The ATC would be a lightweight daemon that does the following:
- listens on some TCP port
- receives a request
security token (?), thread id, priority
- authenticates the request (?)
- examines schedule
- reserves the next available time slot
- returns the launch code
security token (?), current time, launch timing offset to current time, URL and auth token for the API
- expunged expired launch codes
The ATC would need the following:
- to know what port it is supposed to run on
- to know how many slots per time period it was set to schedule
(e.g. 8 per second)
- to have a super fast read/write access to the schedule (associative array?)
- to know the URL and corresponding auth token for the thread to use
- maybe to know multiple URLs and auth tokens for load balancing
Here are more things to consider:
Security
How could we keep the ATC secure while ensuring high performance?
Network-level security (e.g. firewalls allowing only the IP addresses of the file-processing servers?)
Auth tokens or logins and passwords?
Performance
What would the requirements be for this ATC server? Would this be taxing to a CPU and memory?
Timing
How often would an NTP call be needed? By the ATC server? By the servers which call the API?
Scalability
Being able to provide different URLs and auth tokens would allow the ATC to load balance with different API providers.
Threading of the ATC itself
Would the ATC need to spawn threads to be able to handle each new request?
How does a web server handle requests?
How would the various threads share a common schedule?
In a non-threaded environment, the ATC would possibly keep an associative array in memory to keep performance as high as possible. How would the various threads of the ATC have access to the same schedule?
So here is my question. Does this exist? If not, what are some best practices in trying to build the above?
It seems like a beanstalkd kind of network service except it only provides permission/scheduling and is extremely dependant on timing.
Related
I just read this article from Node.js: Don't Block the Event Loop
The Ask
I'm hoping that someone can read over the use case I describe below and tell me whether or not I'm understanding how the event loop is blocked, and whether or not I'm doing it. Also, any tips on how I can find this information out for myself would be useful.
My use case
I think I have a use case in my application that could potentially cause problems. I have a functionality which enables a group to add members to their roster. Each member that doesn't represent an existing system user (the common case) gets an account created, including a dummy password.
The password is hashed with argon2 (using the default hash type), which means that even before I get to the need to wait on a DB promise to resolve (with a Prisma transaction) that I have to wait for each member's password to be generated.
I'm using Prisma for the ORM and Sendgrid for the email service and no other external packages.
A take-away that I get from the article is that this is blocking the event loop. Since there could potentially be hundreds of records generated (such as importing contacts from a CSV or cloud contact service), this seems significant.
To sum up what the route in question does, including some details omitted before:
Remove duplicates (requires one DB request & then some synchronous checking)
Check remaining for existing user
For non-existing users:
Synchronously create many records & push each to a separate array. One of these records requires async password generation for each non-existing user
Once the arrays are populated, send a DB transaction with all records
Once the transaction is cleared, create invitation records for each member
Once the invitation records are created, send emails in a MailData[] through SendGrid.
Clearly, there are quite a few tasks that must be done sequentially. If it matters, the asynchronous functions are also nested: createUsers calls createInvites calls sendEmails. In fact, from the controller, there is: updateRoster calls createUsers calls createInvites calls sendEmails.
There are architectural patterns that are aimed at avoiding issues brought by potentially long-running operations. Note here that while your example is specific, any long running process would possibly be harmful here.
The first obvious pattern is the cluster. If your app is handled by multiple concurrent independent event-loops of a cluster, blocking one, ten or even thousand of loops could be insignificant if your app is scaled to handle this.
Imagine an example scenario where you have 10 concurrent loops, one is blocked for a longer time but 9 remaining are still serving short requests. Chances are, users would not even notice the temporary bottleneck caused by the one long running request.
Another more general pattern is a separated long-running process service or the Command-Query Responsibility Segregation (I'm bringing the CQRS into attention here as the pattern description could introduce more interesting ideas you could be not familiar with).
In this approach, some long-running operations are not handled directly by backend servers. Instead, backend servers use a Message Queue to send requests to yet another service layer of your app, the layer that is solely dedicated to running specific long-running requests. The Message Queue is configured so that it has specific throughput so that if there are multiple long-running requests in short time, they are queued, so that possibly some of them are delayed but your resources are always under control. The backend that sends requests to the Message Queue doesn't wait synchronously, instead you need another form of return communication.
This auxiliary process service can be maintained and scaled independently. The important part here is that the service is never accessed directly from the frontend, it's always behind a message queue with controlled throughput.
Note that while the second approach is often implemented in real-life systems and it solves most issues, it can still be incapable of handling some edge cases, e.g. when long-running requests come faster than they are handled and the queue grows infintely.
Such cases require careful maintenance and you either scale your app to handle the traffic or you introduce other rules that prevent users from running long processes too often.
I want to ask some clarifying questions about NodeJS, which I think are poorly described on the resources I studied.
Many sources say that NodeJS is not suitable for complex calculations, because it is single-threaded and queries are executed sequentially
I created the simplest server on Node and wrote an endpoint that executes a request for about 10 seconds (a cycle). Next, I made 10 consecutive requests via Postman, and indeed, each subsequent request began execution only after the previous one gave a response.
Do I understand correctly that in this case, if the execution time of one endpoint is approximately 300ms, and 700 users will access the server at the same time, then the waiting time for the last user will be a critical 210,000 ms?
I also heard that the advantage of NodeJS is the ability to support a large number of simultaneous connections, then what does this mean and why is it a plus if the answer for the last person from the last question will still be very long
Another statement I came across is that libuv allows you to do many I/O operations at the same time, how does it work if NodeJS processes requests sequentially anyway?
Thank you very much!
TL;DR: I/O operations don't block the single execution thread. CPU intensive tasks DO block the thread and a NodeJS web server is not a good option in that case.
Yes, if your endpoint needs 300ms of synchronous work (cpu) to complete the operation, the last user will wait 210,000ms.
NodeJS is good at handling a large number of connections when the work it needs to do is i/o bound. It is not a good choice if the endpoint needs a lot of CPU time.
I/O operations operate at a different layer and take ZERO CPU time. That means that once the I/O operation is fired, NodeJS can accept new calls to the endpoint. NodeJS then polls the Operating System for completed I/O calls whenever its not using CPU and executes the callbacks. This is what allows it to handle a large number of concurrent requests without one user needing to wait for others to finish.
Some Concepts:
TPS means Transactions per second
Response time is the total amount of time it takes to respond to a request for service
Is this formula true?
TPS = number of concurrent users / response time
It is true if transactions happen sequentially and in only one thread (on one TCP connection) per user. In reality, however, when talking about web browsers, they will use multiple concurrent connections when talking to a host. 6 concurrent connections is quite common, so the host will then get TPS = 6 x concurrent users / response time.
Also, the browser will sometimes be blocked and not fetch things. Sometimes because it is executing code, sometimes because it cannot perform some operations simultaneously with other operations. See http://www.browserscope.org for more info.
Also, of course, clients (whether they are humans using a browser or e.g. a mobile phone app talking to its backend via a REST API) don't usually make requests back to back, continuously, at the highest possible rate. That is probably not a very realistic test case. Usually, clients will make a bunch of requests and then fall silent for a while, until the user does something new in the application that requires more data from the backend.
I'm building an application using tag subscriptions in the real-time API and have a question related to capacity planning. We may have a large number of users posting to a subscribed hashtag at once, so the question is how often will the API actually POST to our subscription processing endpoint? E.g., if 100 users post to #testhashtag within a second or two, will I receive 100 POSTs or does the API batch those together as one update? A related question: is there a maximum rate at which POSTs can be sent (e.g., one per second or one per ten seconds, etc.)?
The Instagram API seems to lack detailed information about both how many updates are sent and what are the rate limits. From the [API docs][1]:
Limits
Be nice. If you're sending too many requests too quickly, we'll send back a 503 error code (server unavailable).
You are limited to 5000 requests per hour per access_token or client_id overall. Practically, this means you should (when possible) authenticate users so that limits are well outside the reach of a given user.
In other words, you'll need to check for a 503 and throttle your application accordingly. No information I've seen for how long they might block you, but it's best to avoid that completely. I would advise you manage this by placing a rate limiting mechanism on your own code, such as pushing your API requests through a queue with rate control. That will also give you the benefit of a retry of you're throttled so you won't lose any of the updates.
Moreover, a mechanism such as a queue in the case of real-time updates is further relevant because of the following from the API docs:
You should build your system to accept multiple update objects per payload - though often there will be only one included. Also, you should acknowledge the POST within a 2 second timeout--if you need to do more processing of the received information, you can do so in an asynchronous task.
Regarding the number of updates, the API can send you 1 update or many. The problem with this is you can absolutely murder your API calls because I don't think you can batch calls to specific media items, at least not using the official python or ruby clients or API console as far as I have seen.
This means that if you receive 500 updates either as 1 request to your server or split into many, it won't matter because either way, you need to go and fetch these items. From what I observed in a real application, these seemed to count against our quota, however the quota itself seems to consume resources erratically. That is, sometimes we saw no calls at all consumed, other times the available calls dropped by far more than we actually made. My advice is to be conservative and take the 5000 as a best guess rather than an absolute. You can check the remaining calls by parsing one of the headers they send back.
Use common sense, don't be stupid, and using a rate limiting mechanism should keep you safe and have the benefit of dealing with failures either due to outages (this happens more than you may think), network hicups, and accidental rate limiting. You could try to be tricky and use different API keys in a pooling mechanism, but this is likely a violation of the TOS and if they are doing anything via IP, you'd have to split this up to different machines with different IPs.
My final advice would be to restructure your application to not completely rely on the subscription mechanism. It's less than reliable and very expensive API wise. It's only truly useful if you just need to do something in your app that doesn't require calling back to Instgram, your number of items is small, or you can filter out the majority of items to avoid calling back to Instagram accept when a specific business rule is matched.
Instead, you can do things like query the tag or the user (ex: recent media) and scale it out that way. Normally this allows you to grab 100 items with 1 request rather than 100 items with 100 requests. If you really want to be cute, you could at least merge the subscription notifications asynchronously and combine the similar ones into a single batched request when you combine the duplicate characteristics such as tag into a single bucket. Sort of like a map/reduce but on a small data set. You could of course do an actual map/reduce from time-to-time on your own data as another way of keeping things in async. Again, be careful not to thrash instagram, but rather just use map/reduce to batch out your calls in a way that's useful to your app.
Hope that helps.
I have a service which polls a queue very quickly to check for more 'work' which needs to be done. There is always more more work in the queue than a single worker can handle. I want to make sure a single worker doesn't grab too much work when the service is already at max capacity.
Let say my worker grabs 10 messages from the queue every N(ms) and uses the Parallel Library to process each message in parallel on different threads. The work itself is very IO heavy. Many SQL Server queries and even Azure Table storage (http requests) are made for a single unit of work.
Is using the TheadPool.GetAvailableThreads() the proper way to throttle how much work the service is allowed to grab?
I see that I have access to available WorkerThreads and CompletionPortThreads. For an IO heavy process, is it more appropriate to look at how many CompletionPortThreads are available? I believe 1000 is the number made available per process regardless of cpu count.
Update - Might be important to know that the queue I'm working with is an Azure Queue. So, each request to check for messages is made as an async http request which returns with the next 10 messages. (and costs money)
I don't think using IO completion ports is a good way to work out how much to grab.
I assume that the ideal situation is where you run out of work just as the next set arrives, so you've never got more backlog than you can reasonably handle.
Why not keep track of how long it takes to process a job and how long it takes to fetch jobs, and adjust the amount of work fetched each time based on that, with suitable minimum/maximum values to stop things going crazy if you have a few really cheap or really expensive jobs?
You'll also want to work out a reasonable optimum degree of parallelization - it's not clear to me whether it's really IO-heavy, or whether it's just "asynchronous request heavy", i.e. you spend a lot of time just waiting for the responses to complicated queries which in themselves are cheap for the resources of your service.
I've been working virtually the same problem in the same environment. I ended up giving each WorkerRole an internal work queue, implemented as a BlockingCollection<>. There's a single thread that monitors that queue - when the number of items gets low it requests more items from the Azure queue. It always requests the maximum number of items, 32, to cut down costs. It also has automatic backoff in the event that the queue is empty.
Then I have a set of worker threads that I started myself. They sit in a loop, pulling items off the internal work queue. The number of worker threads is my main way to optimize the load, so I've got that set up as an option in the .cscfg file. I'm currently running 35 threads/worker, but that number will depend on your situation.
I tried using TPL to manage the work, but I found it more difficult to manage the load. Sometimes TPL would under-parallelize and the machine would be bored, other times it would over-parallelize and the Azure queue message visibility would expire while the item was still being worked.
This may not be the optimal solution, but it seems to be working OK for me.
I decided to keep an internal counter of how many message are currently being processed. I used Interlocked.Increment/Decrement to manage the counter in a thread-safe manner.
I would have used the Semaphore class since each message is tied to its own Thread but wasn't able to due to the async nature of the queue poller and the code which spawned the threads.